The Supreme Court has upheld the 36-year prison sentence imposed on Dilawar Hussein for the death of three siblings from Morata de Tajuña, whom he killed on December 17, 2023 because of a debt, striking them with a piece of iron.
This is stated in a ruling to which Europa Press has had access, in which the conviction for three counts of homicide and another for breach of sentence is fully confirmed.
The person responsible for the triple murder ended the lives of the three siblings through severe blows to the head and face with a blunt object that was not found, which caused them a fatal traumatic brain injury. Two days later, he returned to the home where the bodies were and set them on fire.
The High Court emphasizes that "the three crimes are truly execrable because of the circumstances in which they are carried out and how they are executed, as well as the return to the place of the crimes by setting fire to the bodies.
The proven fact reflects the use of "exorbitant violence, with three elderly persons and with an execution method that evidences extraordinary aggressiveness in the conduct of the appellant, who did not stop only at the brutal execution of the crime against the three victims, but two days later returned to the place where he had killed them in order to set them on fire."
"A PLUS IN PERVERSITY"
For the justices, all of this shows "an additional level of perversity in the crime when all three were already dead, given the extraordinary use of violence with which he killed them by striking them, causing a traumatic brain injury to the three victims, clear proof of the brutality and cruelty of the three crimes."
The popular jury ruled out applying the mitigating circumstance of confession, considering that when the accused went to the barracks of the Guardia Civil to recount what had happened, he already had knowledge that the criminal procedure was directed against him. Therefore, it was not appropriate to recognize that mitigating circumstance, a criterion now supported by the Supreme Court, after it was also done by the TSJ of Madrid.
In this regard, the ruling emphasizes that "it must be remembered that the appellant goes to police premises 35 days after the triple murder, when he already knew that the investigation had been initiated against him."
The Supreme Court supports the reasoning followed to reject the mitigating circumstance of confession and concludes that the appealed decision is sufficiently grounded in all its aspects.
In this regard, it emphasizes that "the impairment of the right to effective judicial protection of the appellant does not occur because the judgment is properly reasoned".
The court adds that what the defense has raised, in its case, could only affect the right to effective judicial protection linked to the conduct of the prosecution carried out by the Public Prosecutor's Office and, where applicable, by the private and public prosecutors, as well as by the victims, once the evidence for the prosecution has been admitted, carried out, and assessed in the judgment with due reasoning.
It also recalls that the Public Prosecutor's Office, the prosecution parties, and the victim of the offense enjoy the right to effective judicial protection in order for a conviction to be maintained when it is challenged by the defense, provided that the ruling is duly reasoned.
For this reason, it is underlined that the victim of the offense, in this case three elderly people whose lives were taken in a particularly cruel manner, also holds the right to effective judicial protection when the judgment is duly reasoned, since the existence of sufficient evidence for the prosecution has been considered to rebut the presumption of innocence".